no u
1917 (2019)
hey art decider, ur mom isn't art
Posts: 7
Joined:
December 2019
I beg your pardon?
Ouch! You just destroyed the guy.Vader182 wrote: ↑January 23rd, 2020, 11:31 pmI had the pleasure of being invited to pilot a "debate" segment of The Take podcast for the first episode of the show in 2020. I was asked to defend the virtue of Dunkirk against 1917.
it's all more than a little cheeky and a bit glib, but I do mean most of what I say here:
https://www.flicks.com.au/features/the- ... -dunkirk/
As always, enjoy listening / let me know if you think I said something unspeakably wrong.
-Vader
1917 is so generic. I don't like the 'take out-argument' myself but... take out this whole 'one shot' gimmick from the movie and what've you got?
Dunkirk will last.
(1917 if so it's because of the WWI theme.)
I really want Nolan to venture into WWI territory. I honestly don't see him tackling WWII again anytime soon.
I love his IMAX/practical approach so much and while Mendes and Deakins opted for a lot of in-camera, there are a lot of things Nolan would never have done like them. Which is fine and they're such different directors that that's a good thing of course but imo there simply aren't enough big budget WWI films, at least not modern ones.
I love his IMAX/practical approach so much and while Mendes and Deakins opted for a lot of in-camera, there are a lot of things Nolan would never have done like them. Which is fine and they're such different directors that that's a good thing of course but imo there simply aren't enough big budget WWI films, at least not modern ones.
Posts: 708
Joined:
November 2010
Dang, Deakins got his 2nd Oscar 
Posts: 1230
Joined:
January 2019
Can we love the film again? Insted of repeating "Oh my god, it doesn't deserve any award, it's just emotionless gimmick" all day?
